🚀 go-pugleaf

NOTE: Followups directed to news.admin,news.admin.policy only, at the
public request of rec.music.synth readers.

In article <1992Nov15.114539.10491@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

   What if there are some gateways (which have this ability) that have
   been set up and left on automatic? What if new maintainers have no
   idea how to change the name, or have no idea that the gateway even
   has the ability?

This point strikes me as contrived.  First, since the hypothetical
situation contradicts the observed facts, I discount it.  Second,
/assuming/ this controversy recurs over another renaming, /assuming/
the renamed group is gatewayed, /assuming/ the gateway has no
maintainer, or if the so-called "maintainer" is so incompetent that
s/he can't even change the name of the newsgroup, the gateway will
likely be taken over by a volunteer at another site.

   >I see no evidence of blind adherence.  What I see instead is
   >acceptance of the rule of law.  
   Seriously, what's the difference? 

It is the difference between blind adherence and reasoned adherence.
Ignoring the rules this time will lead to more disputes because of the
precedent established that the rules can be shouted down, amendments
or no.  Following the rules this time will have a small (and hotly
disputed) temporary negative effect on one newsgroup.

   >I think revotes are a big waste of time and should not happen.
   Why?

The newsgroup administration process should be simple, fast, and
cheap.  The guidelines should provide a framework for such a process.
Revotes are duplication of effort which should only occur if a gross
injustice occurs.  In that case, the vote will be annulled by
consensus, one possible consequence being a revote.  Putting rules for
revotes into the guidelines will just arm and encourage rules fanatics
to force revotes.  That is why I oppose revotes in the guidelines.
Again, a yardstick for good policy is whether the right thing occurs
quickly with a minimum of articles posted to n.a.newgroups and other
related groups.

Again, I think no gross injustice occurred in this case.  The current
state of affairs is acceptable to nearly everyone.  That is why I
think a revote of r.m.synth is a waste of time.

   If I can find a good way to drop it, I will. But I can't right now...as
   this is what a lot of people want for the sake of compliance. I do
   not agree with the issue and will continue to not agree as long as
   people are willing to not agree with me. 

I think a straw poll would put this in better perspective.  I will
conduct one.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>